Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rishab Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Rishab Steels Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 26, 1996
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/10126

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rishab Steels Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(1997)(93)ELT191TriDel

Excerpt

1. this is an application for dispensing with predeposit of total amount of rs. 7,38,099/- which has been demanded from the applicant herein by the assistant commissioner of central excise division in ghaziabad in his order dated 29-3-1996 which has been confirmed by the commissioner of central excise (appeals) ghaziabad in the impugned order. shri r. santhanam ld. counsel appearing for the applicant submits that modvat credit in this case has been denied to the applicant in respect of their light diesel oil (ldo) furnace oil (fo) and mobile oil (mo). credit has been disallowed on the ground that they are not covered by the term input used in the manufacture of final product. the ld. counsel contented that the very same authority has in respect of other assessee for the same period had allowed modvat credit in respect of other assessee for the period had allowed modvat credit in respect of these inputs. he referred to the assistant commissioner's order dated 29-3-1996 relating to the m/s. concast steel. counsel argued that definition of the input under rule 57a with effect from 1-4-1994 included fuel as an input and therefore in their case the inputs in question namely ldo, fo and mo fulfil this condition.2. we have heard shri jangir singh, ld. dr we find that the use of ldo and fo is directly used in furnace by the applicant for the manufacture of their final product namely iron and steel casting. there is prima facie ground to hold that these materials would be covered by the term input under rule 57a as it stood with effect from 1-3-1994 and having regard to the wide import of the term 'used in relation to the manufacture' occurring in rule 57a. we are, therefore satisfied that this is a fit case for stay and order accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. This is an application for dispensing with predeposit of total amount of Rs. 7,38,099/- which has been demanded from the applicant herein by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division in Ghaziabad in his order dated 29-3-1996 which has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Ghaziabad in the impugned order. Shri R. Santhanam ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that Modvat credit in this case has been denied to the applicant in respect of their light diesel oil (LDO) furnace oil (FO) and Mobile Oil (MO). Credit has been disallowed on the ground that they are not covered by the term input used in the manufacture of final product. The ld. Counsel contented that the very same authority has in respect of other assessee for the same period had allowed Modvat credit in respect of other assessee for the period had allowed Modvat credit in respect of these inputs. He referred to the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 29-3-1996 relating to the M/s. Concast Steel. Counsel argued that definition of the input under Rule 57A with effect from 1-4-1994 included fuel as an input and therefore in their case the inputs in question namely LDO, FO and MO fulfil this condition.

2. We have heard Shri Jangir Singh, ld. DR We find that the use of LDO and FO is directly used in furnace by the applicant for the manufacture of their final product namely iron and steel casting. There is prima facie ground to hold that these materials would be covered by the term input under Rule 57A as it stood with effect from 1-3-1994 and having regard to the wide import of the term 'used in relation to the manufacture' occurring in Rule 57A. We are, therefore satisfied that this is a fit case for stay and order accordingly.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial